Talk:Kim Jong-nam

Restructure needed

We should aim to present as clear a story as possible, indicating the necessary doubts, and only naming sources inline where they add relevance. At the moment, it reads more like a series of rumours than an account of his life.Earthlyreason (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No free use image (adult) [2009]

A free use image of Kim Jong-nam as an adult cannot be found as of yet. There is [1] from [2], which is a suitable image in terms of content, however, as the photograph was taken in Japan (at Narita Airport), Japanese copyright law applies, and so, cannot be used. I have not been able to find any suitable images that were taken within the DPRK that mark his adult resemblance (only a few childhood photos and family photos), which would be able to fall into the category of Template:CopyrightedFreeUse-DPRK. For use with that template, images must be taken within the DPRK. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Younger son?

There is no mention of "Kim Jimmy" in any sources I've seen, and the second son is not mentioned in the body of the article. Is this vandalism? 74.8.89.79 (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

BBC report about death

In this BBC News report, there seems to be some doubt as to whether the person confirmed by the authorities to be dead is actually Kim Jong-nam. The article says "they named him [the dead man] as "Kim Chol", not Kim Jong-nam" and "An official statement released by Malaysian police named the dead man as "Kim Chol", born 10 June 1970. Kim Jong-nam was born on 10 May 1971." However, they also have this news report, which doesn't give the same doubt, and says that he "lived a life in exile until his death in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 14 February". Can anyone explain the conflicting reports, and does it make any difference to the article?  Seagull123  Φ  16:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The BBC report is fairly clear that it was him, but that he was travelling on a false passport or under a different identity. There doesn't seem, more broadly, to be much doubt that it is Kim who died. More debatable is how (we've gone from needles to cloth on face, and may yet end up with heart attack or whatever), plus when. The second talks about him dying on 14 Feb, while the first says the incident occurred on Monday, ie 13 Feb (and he seems to have died pretty soon afterwards). N-HH talk/edits 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure if this is relevant, but I removed a quote from the article claiming to be from the BBC News report, as I could not find the quote in the article. HelgaStick (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@HelgaStick: I added that quote, and it was in the article when I added it, but sometimes (I think) BBC articles change quite a bit as they're updated.  Seagull123  Φ  22:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; I know it was quoted in a Reuters report and other publications (and alluded to in the more recent version anyhow). I just removed it as I couldn't find the quote in past editions on the Internet Archive, and added some more detailed info. HelgaStick (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Assassination Attempt

According to this Independent article, there was an assassination attempt in Macau in 2011, but I found no reference in this wiki article.Goatonastik (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Goatonastik: If this fact is well referenced, then be bold and add it! But is it possibly talking about the assassination attempt mentioned right at the bottom of this section - "He left Macau allegedly on suspicions that he was being targeted for assassination by Kim Jong-un; South Korean authorities had formerly indicted a North Korean agent by the name of Kim Yong-su who confessed to planning an attack on Kim Jong-nam in July 2010"?  Seagull123  Φ  22:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)\

@Seagull123: That could be it! However, the article I referenced stated that it happened in 2011. I will have to try to find more information on it, but thank you!Goatonastik (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's ok Goatonastik! Maybe try the reference desk if you can't find any more information?  Seagull123  Φ  21:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit more detail here: "North Korean assassins reportedly tried to shoot Kim Jong-nam in Macau in 2011, although details of the incident are shrouded in mystery". The 2010 incident was a hit-and-run plot. The 2011 incident was apparently a shootout with bodyguards. It seems there was a separate plot in 2012. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not confirmed as murder

The Malaysian police have said there was "no sign" he was murdered, so I have changed the article to reflect this.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that "under suspicious circumstances" in the lead covers it. There are conflicting reports; we don't know what the circumstances are at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Another source that confirms that this is still speculation:[3]--Jack Upland (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There's far too much as a whole of people just chucking in every latest bit of detail and speculation, leaving content that is both bloated and a patchwork of assertions and statements (much of which is speculative, non-linear and/or contradictory). If the page is going to be constantly updated, it needs to be done by summarising, coherently and concisely, the current state of knowledge about what happened, and by losing information that has been superseded by events (unless the fact it was at sone stage asserted is signifcant in itself). N-HH talk/edits 15:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

At least the body is confirmed to be that of Kim Jong-nam as the body's fingerprints were indeed that of Kim. Korean government also stores the fingerprints of all citizens since 1964 for identification purposes, a practice that has no equivalents in the world,thus having reliable biometrics /forensics technology. CCTV surveillance material, which is rare in Western countries except for UK and certain parts of the US, also show circumstantial evidence of murder.The incident did not happen in the Western or British world; so judging the whole situation from Western or British perspective is not proper. (Nor is a dead body required for guilty conviction in murder cases) Even assuming that wiki is very anglocentric and follows the perspective and world view of certain academic societies which view the world's matters in a different perspective from the rest of the world, the attitude towards the current incident is not proper. Neither Malaysia nor Korea are lax societies where a terrorist was able to travel through many countries before being shot dead by an Italian policeman. Especially Korea, which is a very stringent surveillance country where high res intelligent CCTVs are sometimes installed in a few metres' distance with overlapping view areas and capable of identifying a subject in seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob2013 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There's still a mystery over the death:[4]--Jack Upland (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean "Korean government also stores the fingerprints of all citizens since 1964 for identification purposes, a practice that has no equivalents in the world". Malaysia has had thumbprint biometrics as part of the MyKad for over 15 years. Prior to that, thumbprints were still a part of the identity card although not biometrics. I'm not completely sure if the biometrics are stored in a database or only on the card, but the thumbprints themselves are definitely kept. These may not have always been digitised or easily searchable [5] but of course if you're trying to compare to a specific individual that isn't such a problem.

And Malaysia is hardly unique in having some sort of fingerprints as part of their national identity document, see Countries applying biometrics and Identity document for more (these don't always mention if records of the fingerprints are kept but they definitely are in some cases). Fingerprints are also part of some biometric passports although I believe these often are only on the passports. (Netherlands is mentioned as one which does have a central database.)

Incidentally whatever did happen appears to have mostly happened in KLIA2. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any major international airport without high quality CCTV throughout most of the airport.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The following statement "Kim's extensive Facebook usage under this pseudonym since at least 2010, and usage of commercial email services for communications, may have made it easier for North Korean agents to seek his whereabouts and track his movements" Seems to imply guilt on the part of the North Koreans. That hasn't been proven yet and, in my thoughts, should be modified. Thoughts?ENumC (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is that it is speculation from early in the case. It isn't quoting investigators; it appears to be just a media opinion. I think it should be removed unless investigators have made the same point.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo needed (2017)

The non-free photos were removed in 2004, when he was alive. However, he is now dead, so no new photos can be created, so can someone add fair-use images of him from before? -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've submitted a request for undeletion of a non-free photo of him. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That link doesn't take me to a specific request. Do you have the name of the file you want undeleted? Jonathunder (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That link leads to a specific request for me, not sure why it shouldn't work for you. Anyway, here's the file: File:Ac.kimjongnam.jpg. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The request at REFUND was rejected as the file requested has disappeared and is not in the archives; there's a suggestion for an alternate file by the respondent there -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A confusing and possibly incorrect sentence

"It is believed that Kim Jong-un, Jong-nam's youngest half-brother, became the new heir apparent due to this incident."

This sentence is confusing because it is not apparent what "due to this incident" means.

First, it's not clear whether it's "it is believed due to" or "he became the new heir apparent due to".

Second, it is not clear exactly which incident this sentence refers to. It can be one of three, either "the Tokyo incident" in the former paragraph (not mentioned in the source 11), or the propaganda campaign about Kim Jong-nam's half-brothers' mother (not mentioned in the source 11), or the ROKS Cheonan sinking (mentioned in the source 11, but it can't be referred to as "this insident" due to its absence in this article).--Adûnâi (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I took this out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Some questions I'd like to see us answer

I realize that there are a lot of media sources telling all this exactly the same way, so this is difficult. But there are some gaps I really wish we could fill.

1) Why was the Disneyland visit such an issue? Was it the fake passport, the country (Japan) or the stated reason (Disneyland) that offended people? (For example, why couldn't he just say something like he was looking at ideas for setting up recreation parks for North Korean kids?)

2) Is anyone concerned about the chemical sprayed at the airport? (I mean, I'd have thought that if you spray a lethal poison at an airport that they would clear the place, shut it down, have hazmat on the scene, track down people who might have been exposed, etc.)

3) Why weren't the women who did the spraying/holding injured by their own attack?

Wnt (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

1. According to Andrei Lankov, it wasn't:

   It was widely reported that this incident led to a falling-out between Kim Jong Nam and his father, but these oft-repeated claims are based on hearsay. After all, this was not his first trip to Japan under an assumed name with a fake passport. Members of the Kim family at the time frequently used fake identities when traveling overseas, so the scheme would hardly have raised the ire of the ruling Kim.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

References

The police are still awaiting results of tests to determine what was in the spray, if there was a spray. Reports say that the suspects reconnoitered the airport the day before and sprayed each other.[6] We still don't know a lot about the death. There is still no confirmation it was murder. Many of the reports appear to be false, such as the claim that needles were used.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

protection?

should the page be semi-protected? this page is subject to vandalism,editorial bias, and is being edited a lot ever since it came out.L.S. inc. ^(talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Detail on death

The section on his death (current version) is being expanded seemingly minute by minute with every piece of speculative and trivial passing detail that's being reported. Much of it is also in garbled English and reliant on some fairly ropey media sources. That could be copyedited, but I'm not sure it needs to be here at all and I'm tempted to cut whole chunks of it out. As noted above, WP is not a rolling news aggregator: all that is needed at any point in time is a clear summary of the latest, confirmed state of play, relying on the most up-to-date sources. And when that changes, superseded content and sources can and should go. N-HH talk/edits 10:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think a lot of stuff that is now irrelevant should definitely go. I think, though until the investigation is concluded, it will remain fairly messy.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Why was he arrested?

Currently the article says this:

In May 2001, Kim was arrested in Japan on arrival at Narita International Airport, accompanied by two women and a four-year-old boy identified as his son. He was traveling on a forged Dominican Republic passport using a Chinese alias, Pang Xiong, which could mean "fat bear" in Mandarin Chinese. After being detained he was deported to China, where he said he was traveling to Japan to visit Tokyo Disneyland. The incident caused his father to cancel a planned visit to China due to the embarrassment it caused him.

It doesn't say what he was arrested for. One could guess that it was because the passport was forged, but that's just a guess; it doesn't say that. Is anything known about that? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You arrive at the airport with forged documents, how is that not enough to get the police involved? --178.10.121.241 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You evade the question. Let us grant that that is enough to get a person arrested. That doesn't say whether that is what happened in this case. It doesn't say that authorities realized the passport was forged and that that was the reason for the arrest. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"...arrested in 2001 in Narita International Airport in Tokyo for traveling on a forged Dominican Republic passport."[7] Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Malaysian ambassador recalled?

According to this [8], the ambassador was not recalled.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: But according to this it is confirmed recalled. 103.17.198.19 (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

And that article has now been updated.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What's your poison?

Anybody want to start working on what kind of poison fits the observed effects? So far no lab reports coming out of autopsy yet. Erxnmedia (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This assumes that it was a poison. While I agree that this is by far the most likely explanation, other explanations should not be automatically dismissed. What can be rejected are most likely slow-acting poisons like Ricin, since that one takes more than a full day at the least, to the best of my knowledge. There have been reports of either some nerve toxin in liquid-gaseous form or just a "natual" toxin such as like the fugu fish has. Anyway, the only ones who can solve this mystery are the malaysian authorities and I assume that they have experts in analytic chemistry to clear that question. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The page itself is not going to include the speculation of random WP contributors as to what poison, if any, might have been used, and the talk page is not the place for speculation about it. N-HH talk/edits 20:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Length of the article

The article about his death, and the aftermath, should perhaps become its own article, as it is becoming longer and longer every day. While I assume that currently, most visitor want to know how he has died exactly, in the future perhaps it may be better to split the article into separate ones due to its growing length. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The solution to people endlessly adding often superseded media-reported detail and speculation about his death to a bloated and confusing section on this page is not to spin it all off to another, separate page, but to pare it back here, as noted previously. Although generating excitement temporarily, this is simply not (yet at least) a world-shattering assassination of a major figure that deserves its own page. N-HH talk/edits 20:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The section is bloated, and much of the material is speculative or outdated. Secondly, this article is not actually very lengthy. There is no need to split off his death into a separate page.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I also oppose a split. We should consider condensing via copy edits and selective trimming instead. Neutrality^talk 01:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I've just done a lot of condensing.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well done. Neutrality^talk 03:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The prose size is now 25 kB, below the 40 kB size when splitting starts to be recommended. However, that is partly due to "trimming" of content to avoid the section becoming "bloated" - which would not be a concern if the article were split. I think there is grounds to split. The death meets the criteria in WP:EVENT, the apparent targetted overseas assassination of the brother of a world leader is not your average incident. An obvious precedent linked by the media is the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. There's detail about the investigation that is being left out and now that VX has been discovered one does not need to be clairvoyant to know that the details will expand and the coverage will continue. Fences&Windows 08:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the trimming took away important detail. If it did, it can be reintroduced. What it certainly did was take away material that had been superseded, as noted above. I agree this story has a way to run, but I don't think it should be an accumulation of blow-by-blow accounts and outdated speculation. If people want to create an article about the assassination, they have to talk about something other than length at this point. I think one article is adequate at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose People are most likely coming for the death as you stated, but after this has calmed down there will probably not be any more major updates (on account of him being deceased). Article is long but not absurdly so.Ryanharmany (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Select family tree of North Korea's ruling Kim family

The last annotation is marked with a Greek letter, even though it's a source. Shouldn't it be switched to an Arabic number?--Adûnâi (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

All the footnotes on the family tree have Greek letters, presumably to distinguish them from the numbered footnotes. They are listed at the bottom of the family tree; some are sources and some are just notes. The same family tree is featured on the Kim Jong Un page as well. It is a standalone feature, and that is probably why its footnotes are not integrated into the other footnotes.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Split proposed

• Support split per WP:WHENSPLIT. Coattail effect (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Agree -- section is nearly 1/2 of article already.2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E9E4:907C:2027:59D6 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Further comment: the notability surrounding the unique circumstances assures that there will eventually be an independent article. Splitting now will transfer much of the instability from this article to that one. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E9E4:907C:2027:59D6 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a fairly recent event with an ongoing investigation. It's safe to say that we are not dealing with a stable section here. Let's wait until things clear out and we have cleaned up the section to see how much material there is to work with. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Finnusertop: A lot of topics are not stable. I think the key is determining whether there will be ongoing coverage and/or critical commentary on the subject. Commercial airliner crashes have unstable articles, but are clearly notable from the outset. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Please note: there is already a discussion about this under "Length of the article" above.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment suggestion for split based on content difference, not size. WP:CONSPLIT. 12:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Coattail effect (talk)
• Very agree. There was also descripted about perpreator's biography like on Indonesian Wikipedia --What a joke (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• I would also agree to split. His murder/assassination is really significant within its own right. HelgaStick (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - fairly recent event with an ongoing investigation. Wait until things clear up, then see if text justifies a split. Neutrality^talk 19:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: It definitely has enough notability to be a stand-alone article. On the other hand, the close connection to the existing article, and its medium length can also justify keeping it without splitting. I am somewhat inclined to favor a split, but maybe let's first wait a bit longer until there are more updates on the matter. If the section continues to grow significantly, then it could be split. In the meantime we can continue to update and expand and improve the section as much as possible. I just added an event infobox to it. (talk) user:Al83tito 22:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: WP:CONSPLIT doesn't seem to apply because it refers to a situation where "two or more distinct topics may share the same or similar title". Here, there always will be information about Kim's death on this page. The question is whether there should be a separate article about his death. Alexander Litvinenko was mentioned above, but we have long articles about both him and his death. Here, before his death, Kim's article was little more than a stub. It seems he will be more famous for his death than his life. How notable is his death? Well, some editors measure notability from media coverage, and this will certainly continue to get media coverage since sensational stories about North Korea always do. It is notable for an encyclopedia? Well, he is the half-brother of the leader of a government and was apparently assassinated by that government, and it appears to be developing into a diplomatic incident. I would predict there will be a separate page, but do we make decisions based on predictions like that? I think creating a new page at this point would create two messy articles which largely duplicated the same material. And we really don't have enough material for a page on his death. It could all be condensed into a couple of paragraphs: this is the location; these are the suspects; it was VX.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Individual is not relevant enough to deserve its own death article. Holy Goo (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support split but okay waiting a bit before splitting: I am certain that there will be ongoing coverage and commentary on this assassination. However I think it may be good to wait awhile so the coverage gains momentum. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support He is a notable individual and there has been a substantial amount of coverage on his assassination. 31.49.6.254 (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Increasingly significant event of global interest with important ramifications. His assassination more significant than he himself was. --Mrodowicz (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support His death and its aftermath is already taking up more the half of the article. This story is in the news everyday and its geopolitical ramifications are only growing. --Tocino 03:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this should be put on hold until there are further developments like trials. The flurry of news has died away completely, and this article is no longer growing.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Note for future reference: the assassination was split from this article on 15 May with the edit summary "subject meets WP:NOTABILITY and was too long for that article".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Forensic evidence

I'm surprised by the lack of forensic evidence. The attackers must have disposed of various items (such as the poison container, cloths and possibly rubber gloves) after the attack. Was there a search of litter bins in the area? I have not seen any reports of this. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Those details will likely come out in a trial.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There's still a lot of unanswered questions. However, we don't necessarily have to wait for a trial (if there ever is one). This suggests they only swept the airport for chemicals on the 24th: [9] The identification of VX nerve agent was based on the autopsy, not on anything found at the scene. Hence it sounds like they didn't find anything, and in fact might not have looked.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Tokyo bathhouse

Kim became a regular at a bathhouse in Yoshiwara, one of Tokyo's red light districts.

Is this confirmed or is it a rumour? Does someone have access to the book by Bradley Martin which is cited?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

From the same book, different ed., Jack Upland:

Shukan Schincho, one of Japan's popular weeklies, eventually reported that the young North Korean had become a familiar figure at a Korean nightclub in the Akasaka entertainment district and at a bathhouse in Yoshiwara, a red light district in the Japanese capital. A boathouse attendant, described as "curvaceous", was quoted as saying he had visited her before his ill-fated May 2001 trip. When his picture appeared in the news media, she sad, she recognized him as a enthusiastic customer. "He visited the shop and asked for me three days in a row," the woman said.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Shukan Shincho's page and a Google search indicate it is known for sensationalist and sometimes false stories. A Public Betrayed portrays it as one of the worse offenders in Japan. All the other sources I've found seem to echo these sources (or Wikipedia)...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've asked about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Shukan Shincho. Even if the source is considered reliable, we might want to take this out on WP:BLP grounds. The policy applies (in some cases) to the recently deceased as well as the living. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Replying here instead of RSN: Shukan Shincho does have a habit (and reputation) of publishing sensationalist news of a variety of levels of accuracy. For a BLP issue over something like this I would only use them if *other* reliable sources also have commented on this independantly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess we also need to know if the curvaceous woman is reliable. But, anyway, I don't think this is notable in itself. A lot of people use adult entertainment services. He did have a playboy image, and there was something about his extravagant lifestyle in the article, but this was recently removed because the sources actually were about Jong Un. Something along those lines would be notable, but I think this is trivial and gossipy.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have taken it out. Between the suspect sourcing and the weasily wording ("reportedly" without saying who reported it), and the absence of context (did this contribute to his falling out with his brother? we don't know), plus the BLP issues, I think we can do without it. If this does go back in, let's at least attribute this to Shukan Shincho, as we don't seem to have any other reports from more reliable sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I added "reportedly" yesterday when it was clear the sourcing was questionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Death not confirmed

Today the autopsy said the doctors still have not identified the dead person. Moreover, hi country says that the dead person was Kim Chol. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple reputable news outlets have reported that it is Kim Jong Nam. The Malaysian government has been awaiting formal identification by the family which has not been forthcoming. North Korea has never publicly acknowledged the existence of Kim Jong Nam, so they are unlikely to confirm his death.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And see:[10]--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not the news, we should not be jumping to conclusions that fast. This is a common problem with Wikipedia articles to declare people dead before they actually confirmed dead. We have to be very careful with this sensitive information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

DNA test still pending. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources are reporting his death as fact, and I think we should too.

• "Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of Kim Jong-un, died three weeks ago at a Kuala Lumpur airport." BBC.[11]
• "Kim Jong Nam, the leader's half-brother, was murdered on Feb. 13..." NYT.[12]
• "Kim Jong-nam died after falling suddenly ill at Kuala Lumpur International Airport..." Al-Jazeera.[13]
• "China is continuing to observe events following the death of Kim Jong Nam..." China Daily.[14]

Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The most reliable source are the doctors. Since the press release says that DNA test is pending we can't declare a person dead. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Almost no dead person on this planet has a DNA test performed upon his body before being declared legally dead. Drieakko (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. A doctor would be considered a primary unpublished source. We don't get to decide whether Kim is dead; that's up to the reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In this case is obvious that the media have not conducted any individual research on the matter. Especially, when the homeland of the given person questions he is dead. --- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

BBC is not reliable when it comes to North Korea: [15].

Wikipedia is not the news. We should be very careful. Especially when it comes to people claimed dead.

Kim Jong-Nam case: Ministry waiting for DNA samples to confirm identity of victim.

Wikipedia won't lose anything if the person's status changes 2 days later. Wikipedia will lose if reports inaccurate information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If you don't think BBC, NYT, Al-Jazeera, and China Daily are reliable sources, what source would you like to use? You cited Malaysian Digest earlier, but they are also reporting his death as fact: "Malaysia's investigation of the killing of Kim Jong Nam, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s estranged half-brother, has angered North Korea."[16] "Kim Jong Nam was murdered on Feb. 13 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport"[17] Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 as you may see the news are conflicting at the moment. We only know thta a man names Kim Chol was found dead at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Then, we know that the police suspects the person comes with a different name and that it was murdered. All the other things are conflicting and in fact speculations. Al-Jazeera uses South Korean media for instance: [18]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the press release of the autopsy: [19]. The identification of the body is still pending. See 2:57 and on. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Magioladitis. There are no reliable sources until the DNA testing is completed. Roberttherambler (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

1. They may never be able to do a DNA test if no family member gives a sample and no medical records are provided. Does that mean we never say Kim Jong Nam is dead??? 2. Do you have a source that says Kim Jong Nam isn't dead? North Korea has not said this; it has just identified the dead man as Kim Chol.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

We'd better go fix the John F. Kennedy and Elvis Presley articles too. Those deaths were never confirmed by dna testing either. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that some people think Elvis is still alive.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

A little patience would do. There will be a DNA test based on other DNA samples soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we are covered by WP:BDP. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

With regard to my comment above — North Korea has never publicly acknowledged the existence of Kim Jong Nam, so it is unlikely to confirm his death — here is a source:[20]. The North Korean defector says: "When I was in North Korea, I had absolutely no knowledge of Kim Jong Nam. I didn’t even know he existed. I knew that Kim Jong Il had a half brother named Kim Pyong Il, but I didn’t know about the existence of Kim Jong Nam. Only after arriving in South Korea did I learn about the genealogy of the Kim family and their embarrassing family history."--Jack Upland (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that even the police and the doctors have not 100% confirmed the identify of the victim wile they make efforts to. Newspapers jump to conclusions to increase viewership. There is a difference between wikinews and Wikipedia. Wikipedia can delay the stream of info to ensure accuracy. I had the same concerns with the death fo Michael Jackson and other that were dying but not still dead but the news were already reporting the death. Sometimes, the news and consequentially Wikipedia reported a person as dead before they actually die. This has to stop. Wikipedia should respect human life. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/03/06/accuseds-lawyer-wants-new-autopsy-on-jong-nam/ Third autopsy requested]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/03/06/dna-sample-needed/ “Who does the body belong to? We need DNA samples to identify it,” he told reporters outside the Parliament lobby on Monday.]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

When major, diverse outlets all publish that KJN was killed, I think it is fair to reflect that in Wikipedia. For those wikipedians who need the final certification from the DNA test, I suggest a partial solution: in the article, possibly in its lead, make it clear that while most sources have reported Kim Jong-nam to be the victim, final identity confirmation is pending while awaiting a DNA test or a confirmation of identity from his next of kin or the N.Korean government. Would this be a satisfactory solution to all here? (talk) user:Al83tito 7:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The situation has changed since this discussion was started. Malaysian police are now saying they have identified the body as Kim. This is at the end of the "Autopsy and North Korean–Malaysian dispute" section. If anyone else is still saying it's not Kim, we could add that information there. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it was based on fingerprints from Japan, not DNA.[21]--Jack Upland (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic sections by Adamtheclayman

Extended content

ko.wikipedia.org/factcheck Repost from the Alexander Litvinenko article, which does bear deep similarities (assassinations seemingly authorized or overseen by tyrants worthy thereby, arguably, in the Journal of Asylum, Refugees, and Assassination (JARA), of assassination), and the post ends on the same preventive cross-lingual factcheck treatment for the Kim Jong-nam Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamtheclayman (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC) ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck / ko.wikipedia.org/factcheck Hi Wikipedia, About a month or two ago, I visited the Russkiy yazik (Russian) Langauge version of Wikipedia and found some deliberately misleading, false, fraudulent, and defamatory statements there about Alexander Litvinenko ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ва́льтерович Литвине́нко, IPA: [ɐlʲɪˈksandr ˈvaltərəvʲɪtɕ lʲɪtvʲɪˈnʲɛnkə]. It practically looked like it was written by the FSB, and had _very little similarity_ to the English Wikipedia Treatment of the Subject. For instance, there was a statement, maybe well coerced, above the fold by Litvinenko's 'father' saying that Litvinenko was an embarrassment, and there was a whole lot of invalid uncertainty and disinformation about the mechanism of death and the traceability of the death back to the Inquiry's identified culprits, and the involvement of Vladimir Putin. Of course, ru.wikipedia.org is under pressure itself. Authors in Russia can get killed for editing Litvinenko article, like the dozens of journalists now who have disappeared or been killed in mysterious circumstances. But I can't keep monitoring this for neutral point-of-view myself, and i'm past the limit of machine translation: there are natural langauge 'tricks' of bias that I can't catch, in the interstices of machine translation capability on Translate. So, what I'm proposing, and what I've done here, is include a link at the very top to "ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck", which redirects bilingual volunteers (RU>EN + EN>RU) to that page to fact-check Wikipedia across Langauges. The Neutral Point of View on Litvinenko, following the exhaustive UK Litvinenko Inquiry, should not be any different on the basic facts, and any divergence should be subject to questioning, if the ru.wikipedia.org seems to be deliberatively misinforming Russian Langauge Readers. This link is syntax-positioned just before the deep name, in local endonym, of the Notable Person or Event. This Litvinenko cross-link model might serve as a template for other cases. Let me know if you have any suggestions for the syntax. The ideal thing would be to link at the name itself, but that's proven difficult, given the existing display code. This Litvinenko scandal, more than any other, that has traction in a popular, more neutral reconsideration of Putin's Plutonium + Polonium Reign. Who has access to Polonium, aside from the authority chain of centralized state control, and how could this have been done, and remain unprosecuted locally, without authorization and protection at the highest level, extending to a ru.wikipedia.org Disinformation Campaign? So please, to keep this from repeating again, if you would, please consider supporting this syntax for cross-lingual factchecking in versions of Wikipedia that proliferate through the world, and may be subject to Governmental disinformation campaigns. Certain articles, like the Litvinenko Article, show Revision HSTRY that is indubitably driven by politics, not facts. Another that merits close fact-checking attention right now would be the assassination of Kim Jong-Un's older, regime-critical brother, Kim Jong-nam ko.wikipedia.org/factcheck, without any JARA (Journal on Asylum, Refugees, and Assassination) 007 License. North Korea is claiming that the death was a heart clot (in vulgar English, a heart attack). We know from Indonesia that's disinformation, and it's so inculpatory to disinform the Public about this that Kim Jong-Un might be subject now, if not before, to a JARA 007 Recommendation. It's hard to mistake VX Nerve Gas for a Heart Clot in a toxicology report. Unless, perhaps, Wikipedia means to claim that these are ambiguous in toxicology testing, or that there's a conspiracy in Indonesian Toxicology Labs to bring down Kim Jong-Un. ko.wikipedia.org might not penetrate into Hermit Kingdom, and might be written almost entirely by the Republic of Korea, but it's still worth a factcheck link, while cross-lingual accounts might diverge, so that bilinguals can participate in either langauge contesting Neutral Point-of-View with Facts, as they come in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamtheclayman (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC) 17:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Why is the ko.wikipedia.org version missing a summary above the fold recognizing the notably spectacular nature of this death? Ok, if you want to experience a totalitarian disinformation campaign, machine translate this, and if it looks ok for a moment, go back into the Page HSTRY: https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B9%80%EC%A0%95%EB%82%A8_(1971%EB%85%84) Using Google Translate, there are _massive_ structural differences in the treatment of Kim Jong-nam in ko.wikipedia.org compared to en.wikipedia.org. Relying on automated translation, we have _just this_ on ko.wikipedia.org, as of about 02017年03月05日 17:35 AM UTC: Gimjeongnam (men's things金正, 1971 year 5 month 10 one - 2017 Mon 213 days ) is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Kim Jong Il's eldest son Jong前and chief leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Kim Jong-un is the half-brother. When we have this above the fold on en.wikipedia.org: Kim Jong-nam ko.wikipedia.org/factcheck (Chosŏn'gŭl: 김정남; Hancha: 金正男, Korean pronunciation: [kim.dʑʌŋ.nam] or [kim] [tɕʌŋ.nam]; 10 May 1971 – 13 February 2017) was the eldest son of Kim Jong-il, leader of North Korea. From roughly 1994 to 2001, he was considered the heir apparent to his father.[3] Following a series of actions showing dissent to the North Korean regime, including a failed attempt to visit Tokyo Disneyland in May 2001 by entering Japan with a false passport, he was thought to have fallen out of favour with his father.[4] Kim was exiled from North Korea c. 2003, becoming an occasional critic of his family's regime and an advocate for reform.[5] His younger paternal half-brother, Kim Jong-un, was named heir apparent in September 2010.[6] Kim's death in Malaysia in February 2017 is claimed to be the result of poisoning at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. What? Why would these be so different? Why does the ko.wikipedia.org summary think it adequate to say, "Kim Jong-nam (age) is the DRPK's Last Leader's eldest son and chief leader of the DPRK Kim Jong-un is the half-brother." No explicit mention of period of time 01994 - 02001 of being heir apparent. No mention of being a conscientious dissenter and regime critic. No mention of exile (or cause). No mention of change of heir apparent o Kim Jong-un. Most remarkably of all, no mention of poisoning. Why is ko.wikipedia.org lagging behind the rest of the world by three weeks above the fold? And what in the world is this ______ utter lack of concern for truth, mixed with ulterior motive and agenda: "At around 9 am on February 13, 2017, Kim Jung- nam died shortly after rubbing her face with two women buried in their bare hands at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Span , Malaysia . There is also a theory that he died from botulinum [9] , and that he died after being sprayed with poison. [10] Kim Jong-nam's assassination was carried out in early 2012, the year following Kim Jong Eun's succession in 2011, the National Intelligence Service said. The National Intelligence Service also revealed in April 2012 that Kim Jong-nam sent a letter to Chairman Kim Jong-un to ask him to live. [11] It is also said that some have died from the poisoning ." In ko.wikipedia.org, Kim Jong-nam died in early 02012? What? And Kim Jong-nam sent a letter to Chairman Kim Jong-un asking him to let Kim Jong-nam live? It's like the Hermit Kingdom is using its own Calendaring system, and living in its own alternate reality. The first is true.. they do have their own Calendaring system, and if you ask me, some of the naming on that calendar is really cool, if depraved and depriving. The second, the living in alternate reality, is not so much; not so true. They live in the same reality we do. I think Wikipedias can agree to that wherever we're living at the moment. Basically, if you have already read ko.wikipedia.org in the first waves of publicity, even if you later hear or read something convincing that Kim Jong-nam was assassinated that penetrates through into the Hermit Kingdom, you won't blame it on Kim Jong-un, because it happened 5 years ago in 02012, before Kim Jong-un was even in power, and Kim Jong-un protested in a heartfelt letter to their father. We know that's true! It was on wikipedia.. i don't know, i think i read it back when this fake propaganda crisis started crossing our borders. They're always after our Dear Leader. Keep running this through human and machine translation. Let's work on some moral reaccounting standards on wikipedia's subdivides, as if these were financial statements in each langauge block that have to be audited, as factional profit and loss statements that have to be cross-checked for neutrality in spectacular cases, at least, in environments known to operate without a free media and with governnmental interference in media, like Russia, of course, where most journalists who go critical live in fear of being turned into an example: https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B9%80%EC%A0%95%EB%82%A8_(1971%EB%85%84) Adam D. Clayman (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC) What's the danger of Authoritarian Wikipedia? Here's what an Authoritarian in an off-center langauge can do. They can keep Wikipedia factual and reliable on so many matters that langauge block speakers come to rely upon Wikipedia as a first, even final, source of authority, but then, when an opportune moment presents, on a knotty problem for their Authoritarian faction, they can jump on Wikipedia with 3 fake accounts, then another 3 fake accounts, then another 3 fake accounts, simulating real user behavior (if they're sophisticated), making it look like there's just a series of authentic confusions or even, as with Litvinenko and Jong-nam, sincere, specific counteracting reliable information that grants this Authoritarian faction immunity and privilege when it matters most. So, the Authoritarian in a slightly off-center regional langauge, or a Langauge that's global, center, and central to hectomillions but contained heavily within an Authoritarian-controlled media block (see: Росси́я) can be "captured" selectively by Authoritarian Editorial controls, to 'launder' narratives, stories, mythic and fundamentally cynical (selfish, self-interested) information that favors the Authoritarian regime. The Litvinenko article was way off base, probably for years. This Jong-nam article might be off for another day or two, before Wikipedia can pull it back into Neutral, and subside the fake accounts. The syntax for crosslingual factcheck is important. It helps assure that Wikipedia isn't being selectively compromised by Authoritarian Disinformation Campaigns. Either you have Wikipedia, or you don't. If you don't, you know you're in a filter bubble controlled by your Government. Someone much more technically sophisticated than me will want to figure out how to monitor for "coverage holes" in the access logs indicating domestic spoofing. If i were the FSB, and i wanted to respond to the Litvinenko article coming uncomfortably close to true, I would start serving a version of the article at some fraction of the access logs, to make cheating harder to detect, or in full. The access statistics should be teling if anyone attempts that on a high-priority cross-lingual check, and there are few problems more important for remaining in Conscience across billions of lives than this: being able to draw upon the same (or a very, very similar) neutral point-of-view on the CORE Facts of a case. Another example is the contentious treatment of the Nakba and the Israeli Independence War, which have been and may well be presented differently, on different pages, for a while more. But they really should be a joint page: "Nakba - Independence War", or "Independence War - Nakba", one day, before this Peace finally closes. It would help close the conscience gaps that are holding back peace in that section of the Middle East. You could randomize the order of presentation of (Independence War, Nakba), but the CORE Facts and Map Bias Presentation Orders must be the same, or side-by-side more realistically, to keep everyone in tune of the same basic layers of conscience on fact. It's indisputable that Israel justly considers this their day of Independence, and that no other State lists their dirty laundry prominently in their Independence Day Articles. But it's also true that Palestinians consider the Independence War a Disaster for their families, over generations of nonabsorption into lands they thought they'd be welcomed within. It's also a helpful step in the closure of and regulation of two-state conscience, now that the Palestinian Refugee Population has exploded (HSTRY assymetrically) for lack of absorption by neighboring states. I think that's pretty fair and neutral, and honestly, all Independence Movements have dirty laundry they are hiding, and I don't except any of my own, where i'm eligible for Citizenship: States United, España, Portugal, المغرب al-Maghreb, and Yisrael. This isn't moral relativism: there are vast differences, per tribe culture and per each tribe's and nation's or nation of nations' capita, that are measurable in life, death, disease, landlessness, and varieties of real enslavement in each of these Cases. I just checked the 01948 Palestine War Article, and it's much improved from how i last remember it. It's a different problem to handle this intralingually than interlingually, and i now i have more reason to trust and believe that the en.wikipedia.org has gotten good at intralingual crosschecks on HSTRY. On quick inspection, it looks like a simplex, good, and true Joint HSTRY Peace. It wasn't like this years ago: the stories were separated rather than brought into a neutral POV of one major story that branches into more than one, and far more than two sides of two sides. I'm just curious about why there isn't a link attached above the fold to make the connected coverage (Nakba, Independence War) more accessible. They names are presented in static print, in bold, but not 'hot-jumpable'. But editorially, i can accept either stance, as each has merits and is understandable, and if anyone wants to learn more about one or more strands, getting deep into the word-cloud separations, it's not inaccessible, or being hidden, like some of these Authoritarian 'world clouds' based on abused word clouding. I don't think in my childhood I learned the word Nakba until I graduated College, and I spent time when I was young speaking to Church Audiences about the 01948 Palestinian War. It's not that I didn't look: I went hunting for everything I could find by Palestinian HSTRYans, and did everything I could to find the central truths, but I still couldn't find the word 'Nakba' and extensive resources on the Nakba in 02001 - 02003, and now the endonym for the 01948 Palestine War is thankfully very prominently available. It wasn't out of Authoritarianism either: it was just inaccessible, and i'm not entirely sure, without further study, if that was any identifiable person's fault, but rather just an Epic System fail. I wasn't an inattentive student, either. I was looking and listening, and i never learned the word Nakba. The format in 01948 Palestine War seems to do the job for stabilized intralinguals, but if there could be a fact-check driver that includes link-outs for intralingual 'unreasonable doubt'- and conviction-checking, that would be helpful. Some of these divergences undermine matters that are approaching the Social Verdict level, and if one community believes one conviction, and another community has a completely incompatible verdict, and these stances are just within range of accessibility upregulation of cross-checking, maybe there should be a routine syntax for that. If there is already, and i have no doubt there must be something, i'd love to learn about how it's done. I don't even know how to search for crosschecking. But now that i have searched for cross-checking, i found this analogous Chess article, about endgames generally involving two Queens. There are a large number of Queen communities out there that are falling short on Century Assuring/Altaring Life Movement Unity, i.e. Calmunity. Cross-checking could help these Queen Calmunities reach their real Joint Endgame, measurable in Century Assurances, with no breach in the Covenants Assuring Life Motion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-check Adam D. Clayman (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Lawyers

I've removed this about the two female suspecs:

Both are represented with Malaysian lawyers for their trial, as Malaysian laws do not allow foreign lawyers to practice in their country.

This tells us nothing. It is not remarkable that they have lawyers. And most countries do not allow lawyers from other jurisdictions to practice there. In the USA, lawyers need to be admitted to the bar in that particular state.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

References

ARNKA

I think we should leave ARNKA out. The problem isn't sourcing, it's relevance. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, not directly relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death

@Drieakko and Magioladitis: Please stop edit warring over the cause of death. My own opinion is that we should not list a cause in the infobox until we have a reliable source. Right now I don't see one. The citation in the infobox doesn't say his death was due to VX poisoning; it says the Malaysian police say it was due to VX poisoning. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

OK I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Birth date

We have a source that says his birth date is "May 10, 1971 — not on June 10, 1970, as the passport he was carrying when he died stated." The passport is obviously fake since it has a different name on it. But even if it were legit, it's a primary source and not as acceptable as the Washington Post. If we can find a reliable source that says June 10, 1970 we can include that but we would have to give both dates per NPOV.

Also, the citation for birth date belongs in the Early life section, not in the infobox or lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"We have looked into the possibility that he travelled using a fake passport. I think he has two different identities. Probably this is an undercover document. But it is an authentic passport," he told a press conference here."[22] 59.152.244.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Disney as dissent

From the lead:

Following a series of actions showing dissent to the North Korean regime, including a failed attempt to visit Tokyo Disneyland in May 2001 by entering Japan with a false passport, he was thought to have fallen out of favour with his father.

The cited source does not say the visit to Disneyland was viewed as dissent. Is there any source that does? In fact, North Korea likes Disney and gives a Mickey Mouse backpack to every schoolkid.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I changed "including" to "and". I think the embarrassment stems more from the fake passport than from the destination being Disneyland. I'm not sure we need to even mention Disneyland in the lead, what do you think? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it was Disneyland seems to be quoted in every source. Certainly, this exposed him to even more ridicule round the world, if not at home. I think "embarrassment" is the best word to describe it, rather than "showing dissent". I will amend the article further.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Pang Xiong and Đoàn Thị Hương had very well to travel Tokyo Disneyland with Kim Jong-nam.--Cena Arz 18:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This sentence is again causing controversy. The problem with the current rewrite is that it foregrounds the opinions of outside commentators that it was all about Disneyland, and labels Jong Nam's account as a "claim", implying it is questionable. In fact, Jong Nam probably knew far more about his fall from favour than any outside commentator. The point with the Disneyland incident is that it was splashed in media around the world, whereas everything else happened behind closed doors in Pyongyang. We should be clear that it is purely speculation to say he fell from favour after the incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed the loaded word "claimed" to "said" per WP:SAID. Also removed the citations, as they don't exactly support what's said in the lead. Per WP:LEAD I suggest we get this right in the article, then summarize. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The situation is complex, nuanced, and unclear. We should lay out the available information in the article, and summarise this in the lead. It would be good to get more information on his fall from grace, but I'm not sure that there is any available...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The rewritten sentence establishes that both possibilities for his loss of favor are questionable. After all, it says that he was "thought" to have fallen out of favor due to the Disneyland incident, not that he actually did. Jong-nam himself would have probably known more about why he lost favor, but that doesn't mean the reason he publicly gave is fact; it's simply a possibility, like the Disneyland incident. One could argue that Jong-nam was trying to save face since advocating reform is obviously a more dignified reason to lose favor than being arrested with a false passport and to appear of better character than Jong-un, who took what could have been his. Again, all speculation. The sentence has to make it clear that neither reason for his loss of favor is a confirmed fact and I believe that's what it currently does.

The problem with the prior sentence was that it was inaccurate; the generally assumed reason (thought) why he lost favor was the Disneyland incident. The general thought for why he did not become the next leader of North Korea is not both possibilities; his alleged advocating for reform is what Jong-nam claimed. This is demonstrated in the citation that was originally used: "Kim Jong-nam squandered what little chance he may have had to succeed his father when he embarrassed Pyongyang in 2001; he was caught trying to enter Japan on a fake passport from the Dominican Republic." As I mentioned in my edit, the citation made no mention of Jong-nam possibly losing favor because he advocated reform.

All that being said, I support using "said" instead of "claimed" and removing the citations. Given North Korea's secrecy, it's unlikely we ever will find more information on his fall from grace, so we just need to continue establishing that neither reason given has been confirmed. I simply feel there needs to be a distinction between the generally assumed reason why he lost favor and the reason he gave; again, it's not accurate to conflate the two. Bluerules (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The current wording is an improvement. We simply don't know what happened. We don't even know for sure that he was in the running to succeed his father in the first place...--Jack Upland (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and that's definitely true too. The Times article indicates that he was unlikely to take over because of who his mother was. Probably stating the obvious, but articles related to North Korea in general require this approach because of how little information comes out of the country.Bluerules (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's better to state the obvious than overlook the obvious.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well said. By the way, the Disneyland incident is referenced in the Times article; while Disneyland is not specifically stated, Jong-nam's attempt to enter Japan is discussed. It simply doesn't mention why he was trying to enter Japan with a false passport. Bluerules (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

On a related matter, in the "Loss of favour" section we've got this: "It is believed that Kim Jong-un, Jong-nam's youngest half-brother, became the new heir apparent due to this incident." What incident? The NYT story given as a source does not talk about either the Disney incident or the Ko Young-hee incident that is mentioned in the previous paragraph. It doesn't seem to say anything about why there was a shift from Jong-nam to Jong-un as heir apparent, only about how that shift was being implemented. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please edit the sentence to reflect the source.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but the problem I'm trying to solve now is that we're saying something in the lead that is not cited (I removed the old citations because they didn't support what we said) and is not stated in the article either. I'm not the one who changed the lead so I'm hesitant to try to fix this myself. I would prefer the editor who changed the lead (Bluerules?) fixed this, because my fix is likely to be just to remove everything that is not sourced. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I can't access the source, so I'm no help. I think it would be a good thing to pare the article back to the facts, in other words, remove the speculation. Unless the speculation is from a notable scholar of North Korea it's not very useful. We really don't need the opinions of some hack journalist on the other side of the world who's just trying to create copy on a slow news day...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll re-add the citations for now unless you'd prefer a different approach; the first source does mention the Disneyland incident (as seen in the quote I posted) and the second source is where Jong-nam's reason for his loss of favor comes from. Bluerules (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer we conform to WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE, as I said earlier. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We seem to be going round in circles. The text with citations should be moved from the lead to the body of the article. The lead can then be reworked to reflect what is in the body...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. Working somewhat backwards, I left the lead as-is and added the necessary info to the body. I also removed the nonsensical sentence that refers to "this incident" without saying what incident it's talking about. The important point from the cited source is already covered in the following paragraph. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That'll work. As I said before, I have no issue with the citations being removed from the opening paragraph, per policy. My only concern was that the generally believed reason and his stated reason for his loss of favor were being conflated in previous edits. I'm glad we've come to an agreement on correcting that. I also rewrote the paragraph in the body to make it flow better with the rest of the article. Additionally, should Jong-nam's entire quote on why he fell out of favor be included? I believe it's better to simply summarize what he said and let anyone interested in the full quote check out the citation, but I won't fight its inclusion if you disagree. Bluerules (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Restructure chronologically

The autopsy is part of the investigation, so it doesn't make sense to separate them. The release of suspects is both part of the investigation and part of the dispute. And it is confusing to have events recounted out of chronological order.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it does need to be restructured. I don't know if chronological is best but it's a good start. I also wonder if some of the detail can be cut back. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think roughly chronological, e.g., maybe all the autopsy stuff can be together. Yes, it can be cut back massively. It's not just the detail, it's the way it's been written as the accumulation of news, leading to lot of redundant verbiage. For example: "Following Kim's death, Malaysian police arrested a woman at Kuala Lumpur International Airport on 14 February 2017 in connection with the attack. The woman, a 28-year-old named Đoàn Thị Hương, had Vietnamese travel documentation." This doesn't need to be two sentences...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I did the first three paragraphs of the Death section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've reworked the structure. It's closer to chronological now. The main problem with the previous structure was that the identification of the female suspects came after the conclusion of the autopsy. I've compromised with the chronology by keeping the autopsy and the diplomatic dispute together, but I think this is necessary to understand what happened. I have also removed a lot of verbiage. A lot of the prose was unnecessarily wordy, and a lot of the information was out of date. Still more work could be done on this.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

South Korean response

Following the reworking of the "Death" section, I'm not sure what to do with "South Korean response". As it is basically rhetoric, I'm inclined to remove it. It would be different if South Korea had taken concrete steps in response.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Loose ends

There are several loose ends with the text as it stands.

• What happened to Aisyah's boyfriend, Muhammad Farid Bin Jalaluddin? Reports are that he was released on bail, but was he ever charged with anything?
• What happened to the "unnamed Malaysian man believed to be a chemist"? Was this story genuine?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed information on trip to Malaysia

@Kendall-K1: removed the following information from the Assassination section:

Kim arrived in Malaysia on February 6, 2017, traveling to the resort island of Langkawi on February 8. On February 9 he met with an unidentified American national, reported by the Asahi Shimbun to be an intelligence officer.

References

Personally, I'm partial to the earlier revision. To me, it looks rather abrupt to simply have the section begin with "On 13 February 2017, Kim died after being attacked by two women with VX nerve agent at Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Malaysia while traveling from Macau under a pseudonym.[39][40] ", with basically no context. And while I'm aware that it's an imperfect comparison, something like John_F._Kennedy#Assassination or Malcolm_X#Assassination both provided more information on the assassination in the main article, in addition to linking to the article dedicated to the assassinations themselves. I believe an extra sentence or two on KJN's time in Malaysia would not be unwarranted.

Agree/disagree? PvOberstein (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think information about a reported spy belongs here. Kim's itinerary is not necessary either. What we need are the basic facts. The section as it stands basically covers that, given that we still don't know much. The difference with JFK and Malcolm X is that the story of their deaths is complete. In this case the trial is ongoing.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly my reasoning. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

We hardly even know the basic facts. I think adding information from reliably-sourced third-party sources that give some background to the trip is very helpful to readers, and after all the removed passage is not stating these as facts but just that particular sources are saying this. I would support adding back the removed passage. BabelStone (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If we add everything that anyone has said about this assassination, this article will be longer than Barack Obama. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's worth keeping at least one sentence about his trip to Malaysia (like when he arrived). It doesn't have to be a detailed itinerary, I agree, but as it stands the section is pretty devoid of context. Just the basics of why he was there. PvOberstein (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

At the end of the "personal life" section, this page states that he had "several tattoos, including two of dragons". Even though this is sourced, the source can't be accessed so I suspect that this is vandalism. Consider that. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:4014:108F:A0D8:24A (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It is sourced — the link just has to be fixed — and it is credible that this information could come from a post mortem. If you google it you can find it reported by several sources. I don't think it is vandalism.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kim Ju-ae which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)